• Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Nuclear doesn’t mean anti-renewable, both can exist.

    Not easily, for the reasons explained in my reply to @Frokke@lemmings.world.

    The people who I talk to who are pro nuclear seem very well informed

    I doubt it, because the science itself is against nuclear. Evidence says it would be too expensive and take too long to deliver compared to renewables.

    • Thorry84@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Very well, let’s agree to disagree. Perhaps I am wrong. But I am in no way right wing or spreading misinformation.

      The people I’ve spoken who work in the nuclear field bitch about unneeded red tape all the time. Some of it is important for sure, but a lot of it can be cut if we wanted to without safety becoming an issue. The price of nuclear has gone way up the past 20 years, whilst the knowledge and tools have become better. This makes no sense to me. We should be able to build them cheaper and faster, not slower and more expensive. And there are countries in the world, that can get it done cheaper, so why can’t we?

      I’m all for renewables, I have solar panels. But I’m not 100% convinced we have grid storage figured out. And in the meanwhile we keep burning fossils in huge amounts. If we can have something that produces energy, without fucking up the atmosphere, even at a price that’s more expensive than other sources (within reason) I’m all for that. Because with the price of energy from coal, the money for fixing the atmosphere isn’t included.

      Thank you for answering in a respectful manner.